International Port Security
Captain Kevin S. Cook
Chief, Marine Safety Division
U.S. Coast Guard
Atlantic Area
Portsmouth, Virginia
Security Is Integral To A
Port’s Competitive
Position
LIMBURG impact on Yemen
Yem en's Com petitive Position
Port Charges
Bunker Cost (10 days)
350,000
War APs
300,000
Total
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Country 1
Country 2
Yemen
The Aftermath of the LIMBURG
ADEN CONTAINER TERMINAL (ACT) THROUGHPUT 1999 - 2003
TEUs 1999
TEUs 2000
TEUs 2001
TEUs 2002
TEUs 2003
45000
40000
35000
TEU's
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Month
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
U.S. Maritime Transportation
Security Act (MTSA)




Developed concurrently with
ISPS Code
Aligns with SOLAS and ISPS
Code
Some terminology is different
Applicability to non-U.S. flag
vessels?
 33 CFR 104.105(c) clearly
indicates that valid ISSC will
attest to ship’s compliance
with SOLAS and ISPS Code.
Security Levels
Level three: “Incident Imminent”
Exceptional protective security
measures, lasting for the period of
time when there is probable or
imminent risk of a security
incident.
Level two: “Heightened Risk”
Level one: “Normal”
Enhanced protective security
measures, applying for the period
of time when there is a
heightened risk of a security
incident.
Minimum appropriate
protective security measures
must be maintained at all
times
MARSEC Level  Security Level
Port Facility Boundaries
(USCG)



Extends from ship/port
interface to inner-most security
perimeter
Passenger ships
Where stored, handled,
processed:
 Explosives
 Dangerous cargos
 LNG
 Liquefied hazardous gas
 Oil
 Hazardous materials in bulk
MTSA & The International Port
Security Program
International Port Security
Program
Protect global shipping industry
by sharing and aligning
maritime security practices.
Implemented Summer of 2004
Traveling team to visit 45
countries per year
Liaison Officers stationed around
the world to share information
on best practices
International Port Security
Program
 Interpretations
of ISPS
Code
 Exchange “best practices”
 Improve communication
 Understand approach to
maritime security
Areas of Interest During Visits




Organization of Port Facility
Measures in Place
Ship/Port Interface Operations
Training/Exercises
OAS Countries Visited
Brazil
 Panama
 Guatemala
 Honduras
 Bahamas
 Colombia
 Mexico
 Venezuela
 Ecuador
 Dominican Republic
 Chile
 Costa Rica
 Jamaica
 Trinidad & Tobago
 Peru
 Argentina
 Netherlands Antilles

Reciprocal Visits to the USA
As of December 1, 2005:
 European Commission (Italy, Netherlands,
U.K., Belgium, France)
 Russia
 Norway
 Korea
 Canada (ongoing exchanges)
Preparations for future visit:
 Argentina
 Costa Rica
USCG ISPS Website
Sharing of Best
Practices:
www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/mp/xfaqs.html
Best Practices
Best Practices
More Examples
 3 stage plan for ISPS implementation, distributing costs over
3 year period.
 Integration of five agencies into one new agency with
exclusive authority over ISPS implementation
 Entirely new port security training center
 Frequent moves of security personnel to reduce corruption
 Portable guard posts to randomly cover different port areas
Advantages of Implementation, &
Compliance





Reduce Terrorist Threat
Maintain Competitive Position
Expedite Trade with the U.S.
Improve Efficiency
Reduce Theft
Summary
Effective Port and
Maritime Security
needs to be an
integrated aspect of
port management for
a port to be
competitive and to
entice shippers
looking for reliable
transport of goods to
the United States.
QUESTIONS?